Free Dartmouth
 
  home  
  join
8/22/2003 01:32:00 PM | Brad Plumer

Outsourcing... Economist Brad Delong has ignited a massive (and massively informative) discussion on outsourcing over at his blog. DeLong starts off by critiquing the projection that outsourcing will cost the US 3.3 million jobs over the next few years:

First of all, the number of jobs in the United States is not set by what happens on the sea lanes--on what exports and imports the container ships carry from port to port. The number of jobs is set in the Eccles Building, by the Federal Reserve... (if the Federal Reserve does its job) Americans' demand for imports made in other countries is recycled into foreign demand that employs Americans in industries that export goods, export services, make producers equipment, or build structures... This means that nightmare scenarios--3.3 million high-tech jobs moving overseas--are beyond the bounds of short-run probability. The current account plus the capital account must balance: if the work that used to be done here by 3.3 million people is to be done there, that means that our export industries here must employ an extra 3.3 million people as well.
Of course, that's a hefty little "if" couched in parentheses there, but this all seems plausible enough. We don't need to lose those jobs if we simply reshuffle our industries, and for that reason trade barriers are unnecessary (not to mention harmful). DeLong goes on to offer an alternative solution:

First, get our people out of industry segments where we are about to lose comparative advantage and where wages are about to take a big dive--this is the reason we Democrats like various forms of Trade Adjustment Assistance, for those who work in such industries are about to get shafted and have done nothing to deserve it (and have the ability to impose enormous costs on the rest of us through trade barriers if the political dice roll their way). Second, make sure the public investments in basic research are there to spark applied research and development to create new industries and new forms of high-tech in which our labor and our capital can be very productive (NIH, NSF, DARPA anyone?). Third, remember that the principal determinants of our prosperity and our productivity come from within: get public investment in infrastructure right, private savings and investment high, and investment in education high as well.
Well, that certainly sounds heaps more prudent than trade barriers, but not everyone seems so convinced. The ensuing debate in the comments section raises the usual army of objections, questions and concerns. To list a few:

  • Is it really that easy to ask 3.3 million workers (many of who have families to support) to retrain, shift location, and start anew in another industry (at the entry level, in all likelihood)?
  • Will the wages in the new jobs be comparable to the wages in the jobs lost? Will the fall in consumer prices compensate for the fall in wages? Is there any way to figure this out?
  • What sorts of jobs are being outsourced here? If, say, India is siphoning away our low-level programming jobs, then American workers can stay ahead of the curve through better education, yes? But if Indian programmers are on par with American workers, and simply willing to work longer hours for less pay, then that's a more serious problem, and the US really does need to consider an industry shuffle.
  • Isn't DeLong ignoring the fact that we're running up account deficits with China and India, as documented by, among others, MSNBC. What exactly can we export to these countries if they're not buying? Isn't this when we really start to worry about our trade deficit, like Billmon told us to?

    There's more, of course, and it's quite fascinating, even if it seems like no one knows what's really going on. Whether the outsourcing "crisis" makes a good case for protectionism... well, frankly, I have no idea either.



    0 Comments:

    Post a Comment

  • Dartmouth
    The Free Press

    Alums for Social Change
    The Green Magazine
    The Dartmouth
    Dartmouth Observer
    Dartmouth Review
    Dartlog
    Inner Office
    The Little Green Blog
    Welton Chang's Blog
    Vox in Sox
    MN Publius (Matthew Martin)
    Netblitz
    Dartmouth Official News

    Other Blogs
    Ampersand

    Atrios
    Arts & Letters
    Altercation
    Body and Soul
    Blog For America
    Brad DeLong
    Brad Plumer
    CalPundit
    Campus Nonsense
    Clarksphere
    Crooked Timber
    Cursor
    Daily Kos
    Dean Nation
    Dan Drezner
    The Front Line
    Instapundit
    Interesting Times
    Is That Legal?
    Talking Points Memo
    Lady-Likely
    Lawrence Lessig
    Lean Left
    Left2Right
    Legal Theory
    Matthew Yglesias
    Ms. Musings
    MWO
    Nathan Newman
    New Republic's &c.
    Not Geniuses
    Ornicus
    Oxblog
    Pandagon
    Political State Report
    Political Theory Daily Review
    Queer Day
    Roger Ailes
    SCOTUS blog
    Talk Left
    TAPPED
    Tacitus
    This Modern World
    Tough Democrat
    Untelevised
    Volokh Conspiracy
    Washington Note
    X. & Overboard

    Magazines, Newspapers and Journals
    Boston Globe Ideas
    Boston Review
    Chronicle of Higher Education
    Common Dreams
    Dissent
    In These Times
    Mother Jones
    New York Review of Books
    New York Times
    Salon
    Slate
    The American Prospect
    The Nation
    The New Republic
    The Progressive
    Tikkun
    Tom Paine
    Village Voice
    Washington Monthly

    Capitol Hill Media
    ABC's The Note
    American Journalism Review
    Columbia Journalism Review
    CQ
    Daily Howler
    Donkey Rising
    The Hill
    Medianews
    National Journal
    NJ Hotline
    NJ Wake-up call
    NJ Early Bird
    NJ Weekly
    Political Wire
    Roll Call
    Spinsanity

    Search
    Search the DFP

    www.blogwise.com
    Powered by Blogger

    The opinions expressed here are not necessarily those of Dartmouth College or the Dartmouth Free Press.